Timothy N. Baldwin -- A Response to JB Williams’ Article on Ron Paul

A RESPONSE TO JB WILLIAMS' ARTICLE ON RON PAUL

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
January 10, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

J.B. William’s article attacking Ron Paul, released on December 30, 2011 on NewsWithViews.com, perhaps deserves (I use the word loosely) a response. Williams’ assumes a lot and qualifies virtually nothing. He takes for granted the meaning and understanding of words like “conservative” and “liberal” and uses them to pigeon hole politics and pit people against Ron Paul. It is this kind of miniscule attention to detail that spreads misinformation and disinformation masqueraded as “fact.”

Let us consider Williams’ attacks on Ron Paul in order, and I will offer a critique for the sake of integrity in journalism and truth in politics.

1. Williams says, “Ron Paul remains totally MIA (Missing In Action) on Obama’s Article II ineligibility, which disqualifies Obama for office and every member of congress, including Ron Paul!”

This is a useless tool against Ron Paul and benefits no voters. There is not one Republican candidate taking on this issue. One has to ask, what difference does it make that Ron Paul is not leading the charge in this regard? If no one is taking on this issue as a part of their campaign, then everyone’s score is “zero to zero.” Williams’ use of “fact” is a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic jab at Ron Paul as a “constitutionalist.” But this jab can be made universally to all the candidates; thus, this information is useless and irrelevant to persuade the voters and distinguish the candidates.

2. Williams says, “Mr. Constitution would know the primary function of the Federal Government is to protect and defend the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. – To do that in a 21st Century world, you better have one hell of a standing Military, which Mr. Constitution also opposes.”

Williams obviously mocks Ron Paul as “Mr. Constitution.” Williams steps outside of the objective and enters into the subjective and emotional. Williams’ credibility as an objective journalist diminishes significantly. We need less emotion in politics and more statesmanship. This mockery fails in that attempt.

As to Paul’s stance on defending the United States (while also supporting and defending the United States Constitution), Williams’ offers no support of his insinuation that Paul will fail at protecting the United States, and he offers no references as to what Paul’s plan is for the military and our entanglement in foreign affairs.

It is difficult to take journalism like this seriously when there is not one reference to a reliable source about Paul’s plan. Nor does Williams generate a comparative analysis of Paul’s plan versus the other candidate’s plan and how those plans conform to the constitution and to good policy as it relates to all of the factors affecting America right now (i.e. depressed economy, over-taxation, federal bureaucracies, unemployment, etc.). It amounts to, “ok, children, the sky is green because I say it’s green,” tautology.

3. Williams says, “Obama likes running unopposed. He has won every political race by eliminating his opponents, leaving him unopposed in the general election.”

What Obama likes has nothing to do with Ron Paul’s positions and his viability as an opponent.

4. William says, “Hillary Clinton was a lock for the DNC nomination in the 2008 primaries. Then the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no birth certificate, stole the show. In the end analysis, the left always marches forward in lockstep, despite their many internal disputes. But the political right is more divided and scattered than ever in U.S. history, and they are no match for the unified international left that has already eliminated any real opposition for Obama in 2012.”

Williams makes an observation (“the political right is more divided and scattered than ever in U.S. history”) that offers a reality check about our political condition. Perhaps the reason for this so-called division is because the Democrat-Republican monopoly is finally starting to crumble and the people are getting sick of the same ol’ politics as usual.

Indeed, competition of ideas and real policy critique are resulting because of people like Ron Paul who are willing to think and act independently of political party. The spirit of independence was seen as a good thing in America, and political parties were seen as a potential hazard to that independence of thought. Attacking Ron Paul on these “divisive” grounds does little to convince the American who sees a problem with Democrat-Republican elitism corrupting what we want in leaders.

To Williams, marching in “lockstep” with the political party of choice is more important than one’s responsibility to the Supreme Law of the Land. Yet, for many people, Ron Paul’s breakup of the party monopoly is a long-awaited answer to prayer.

5. Williams says, “Ron Paul will not rule out a third-party run.”

So what? This has nothing to do with Ron Paul’s positions as a constitution-protector and nothing to do with his current candidacy as a Republican. Williams does not develop this thought at all but just throws it out there and presumably hopes that it will stick on the wall for people to draw their own (sinister) conclusions.

6. Williams says, “The Ron Paul campaign is built on a foundation of social liberals, chronic anti-war misfits, modern day peaceniks seeking legalized drugs, atheists, and Democrats and Independents with libertarian leanings. Nowhere in there is ‘conservatives…’ who oppose Paul as much as they oppose Obama. If Ron Paul were a constitutionalist, he would attract the conservative vote.”

Williams demonstrates the epitome of prejudice and incredibility on a political level. The tone of his statement rings of personal offense. Williams’ mis- and over-characterization of Ron Paul’s “foundation” should warn any person (who cares about logical argument) reading his article to be cautious about his premises and conclusions.

Williams uses only key-word titles as “proof” of his arguments against Ron Paul; terms like, “liberal,” “misfits,” “peaceniks,” “atheists,” “conservatives.” Perhaps Williams should have included a glossary of terms in his article, because these words have very little relationship in understanding and applying the Supreme Law of the Land.

America would be in better shape if we had more statesmen discussing the issues in light of constitutional argument and not through political labels used to dumb-down the thought process of choosing a candidate. Williams’ argument using this description amounts to a fifteen second commercial of a candidate explaining why you should “vote for me: I’m a conservative republican!”

And by induction of Williams’ random comments, the word “conservative” only includes those who would use the federal government to force “morality” on the people even though the U.S. Constitution leaves the matters of morality, health, property, contracts, marriage, etc., to the States. Williams’ attack on Ron Paul in this regard is as much an attack on the United States Constitution.

7. William says, “Ron Paul is at odds with conservatives on numerous key issues.

1. Paul supports same-sex marriage
2. Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals
3. Paul opposes mandatory sentencing for three-time losers
4. Paul supports legalizing illicit drugs
5. Paul opposes firm enforcement of immigration laws
6. Paul opposes free trade
7. Paul opposes a strong U.S. Military and National Defense
8. Paul opposes foreign diplomacy and prefers isolationism
9. Paul opposes stricter limits on criminal campaign finance
10. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, but also insists on letting terrorist live amongst us
11. Paul supported the arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq that resulted in deadly terror attacks hours later.”

Williams presupposes an “opposition” between Ron Paul and “conservatives”, even though he does not define the terms he uses repeatedly to try to prove Ron Paul is not “conservative.” And should Williams decide to define the term “conservative,” it would do America well to compare the term “conservative” with the original textualism and intention of the constitution.

When the President swears the oath of office, it is to protect the constitution, not someone’s subjective understanding of “conservative” or “liberal.” Are we not past the years when these terms are used as a basis for any understanding deeper than a Hallmark card?

Williams’ analogy of what Paul “supports” and “opposes” reminds me of the arguments made against the ratification of the United States Constitution. The argument went like this, “since the constitution specifically named items outside the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate (i.e. Bill of Rights), then all items not included in that list are subject to federal control.” That is, since item A through E was specifically excluded from their jurisdiction, the remaining items F through Z are included by implication. The Federalist Paper writers, of course, smashed that argument.

Williams’ illogical argument is similar against Ron Paul: since Paul will not use the federal government to create and enforce laws regarding marriage, drugs, and other domestic issues, he therefore supports gay-marriage, high crimes, stoned druggies, etc. If one is a supporter of the constitution, this should excite us—putting power back where it belongs, allowing the democratic process to reflect the will of the people in a more localized, controlled manner.

In reality, Ron Paul’s position mirrors what the Federalist Paper writers said concerning the powers to regulate the general welfare of the people: the States will retain “a very extensive portion of active sovereignty…[whose powers] are numerous and indefinite”; and the “powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined” (James Madison, Federalist Paper 45). Apparently, to Williams, this is not acceptable.

Additionally, Williams mischaracterizes Ron Paul’s positions. Williams references no credible sources and gives the reader nothing to hang his hat on. He expects people to rely on his word alone. I would hope that people reading Williams’ article would do their own homework and find that his descriptions are inaccurate and distorting at best.

7. Williams says, “As a result, he cannot muster the conservative vote in November 2012, without which, he cannot defeat Barack Obama.”

This statement is based upon Williams’ own definition of “conservative,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Undoubtedly, these terms “conservative” and “liberal,” which describe people in a one-dimensional image, are not accurate to describe the true multi-dimensional makeup of America. Williams ignores the nationally-known cases where people see Ron Paul as the only true conservative. The pigeon-holing simply will not work in 2012. America needs more substance. Williams’ conclusion lacks any analysis based upon any facts.

8. Williams says, “Most of Paul’s ‘social conservative’ congressional votes are actually Tenth Amendment votes, which sidestep the actual issue at hand and redirect the discussion to states right. While conservatives are strong on Tenth Amendment states right, they are also strong on founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature, at the foundation of our Constitutional Representative Republic. Paul is actually a liberal leaning populist candidate, rather than a Jeffersonian libertarian.”

I seriously question Williams’ understanding of or appreciation for the U.S. Constitution at this point. Williams tries to make Paul appear antithetical to the “founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature…of our Constitutional Representative Republic”; however, it was that very generation that left matters of morality, police power, and domestic regulation to the States—the same matters Ron Paul says are the States to govern.

Williams also attempts to separate Paul’s political ideology from Thomas Jefferson’s. He does so in the attempt to disenfranchise those who would support Paul for his support of States’ rights. Yet, Williams does nothing to support his statement.

To Williams, it is not enough that the President of the United States would leave these matters to the States to regulate, as the constitution requires; he would rather use the President to enforce laws of morality even though that exercise of unconstitutional power goes against the “principles and values [which founded] our Constitutional Representative Republic.” Williams is more concerned about enforcing (federal) laws he likes as a “social conservative” than getting the country on the right track of constitutional governance.

Williams’ logic and conclusions are irreconcilable.

9. Williams says, “He has little in common with American conservatives and that presents a serious problem for him when conservative voters are looking to reverse course in America. Paul has been MIA on far too many constitutional issues to call himself a constitutionalist with a straight face.”

How Williams can make such a broad statement as to claim to know the characteristics of the “common American conservative” demonstrates a less-than-statesman approach. Williams displays the “he is not on our team” fallacy. Furthermore, Williams fails to acknowledge the Americans who would not place themselves into the two small pigeon holes used to control political outcomes.

10. Williams says, “Beyond lower taxes and less government, he has literally nothing in common with conservatives and even his smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.”

Within this statement Williams demonstrates Neo-Con ideology, wittingly or not. Williams says that Paul’s “smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.” This should warn every reader of a dangerous political philosophy.
Williams says that since “America is socially and morally bankrupt,” the federal government must be big and strong enough to police the United States because without it, America would decay into anarchy and chaos.

Williams’ suggested constitutional model was rejected in 1787 at the constitutional convention and follows the argument advanced by advocates of a monarchy: that is, people of large populations are incapable of adequately governing themselves and require an executive to rule over every aspect of their lives.

It is for this reason that Ron Paul is doing so well throughout the country. Americans want a President who is willing to put power back into the hands of the people. It is called self-government.

11. Williams says, “Then we have the issue of white supremacists and anti-Semites in his past. Remember, Obama must run unopposed… and the U.S. press will tear Paul from limb to limb long before next November.”

Again, William acts as a “drive-by” media and throws out a loaded statement with no evidence or credible references to support his statement.

12. Williams’ says, “Voters who grasp the reality that the nation is on the brink of total collapse and the world is on the verge of WWIII, are looking for who can defeat Obama and who might have the backbone to protect the nation from eminent danger on several fronts. I’m not sure such a candidate exists in the 2012 election, but I am certain that Ron Paul isn’t it. Facts don’t have any friends, but so far, Paul fans don’t seem too impressed by facts. Paul is unqualified for the job he seeks on this single issue alone! His anti-Semitism and poor-pitiful misunderstood jihadists, blame America first and often rhetoric should be enough to end his campaign… but do the facts matter anymore?”

Williams recognizes that the United States is in serious trouble, but he ironically fails to recognize that much of our troubles derive from a corrupted monetary system and the only candidate calling this fact out is Ron Paul. If there is a premier problem, it is in the area of economics and finance—a fruit of a bitter root most politicians are not willing to address.

Above all, Ron Paul is a proven statesman in this area and has identified the root of the counterfeiters and the evils within economic and financial institutions of the United States and World banks. Paul knows what it will take to rid us of these wrongs and to put America back on the path of social and financial-economic prosperity. It will take Ron Paul as President and governors in the States who recognize these matters to restore America to where it should and must be for a successful future.

If Williams does not recognize the seriousness of our monetary problems and Ron Paul’s obvious and fitting statesmanship and accuracy in this area, then it is no wonder he does not like Ron Paul.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Williams needs to know that Ron Paul only started what will continue until remedy is made in the matters of corrupted economics and finance, unjust foreign entanglement, and unconstitutional governance. Talk all you want about “social conservatism” and “military strength,” the United States will not be able to adequately solve and resolve any of major problems on any level without an economy to fund it.

Upon Williams’ conclusion, he makes a reference to “facts,” yet he barely refers to one fact in his entire article, which is based upon presumptions, presuppositions, mischaracterizations, and generalizations—without even a hyperlink to direct the reader to learn more about what Ron Paul would do as President.

I ask Williams the same question he asks, “do the facts matter anymore?,” with an additional question, “does the United States Constitution matter anymore?”

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Timothy Baldwin is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and Florida) and focuses on constitutional issues. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.

Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and Political Discussions for People of States–all of which are available for purchase through Liberty Defense League. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political science articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.

Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague

E-Mail: tim@libertydefenseleague.com

Home